Policy Brief
The National Poverty Center’s Policy Brief
series summarizes key academic research
findings, highlighting implications for policy.
The NPC encourages the dissemination of
this publication and grants full reproduction
right to any party so long as proper credit
is granted the NPC. Sample citation: “Title,
National Poverty Center Policy Brief #x”.
Food Insecurity in the Detroit
Metropolitan Area Following
the Great Recession
Sandra K. Danziger, University of Michigan, Scott W. Allard, University of Chicago, Maria V. Wathen,
University of Michigan, Sarah A. Burgard, University of Michigan, Kristin S. Seefeldt, University of
Michigan, Rick Rodems, University of Michigan, Alicia Cohen, University of Michigan
Introduction
While the Great Recession officially ended
in June 2009, the recovery that followed
has been slow and high unemployment
rates persist. The recession contributed
to increased food insecurity according to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture: from
2008 to 2011, over 14% of households were
food insecure at some time during the year,
whereas from 1999 to 2007, the figure had
been considerably lower at 10-11%.1
The Detroit Metropolitan Area was
much harder hit by the Great Recession
than many other areas. As a result, food
insecurity has remained quite high in the
region. Gunderson et al. (2013) report 18.2%
of Michigan residents were food insecure in
2009. In the three counties that comprise
the Detroit area, food insecurity rates
in 2009 were 23.8% for Wayne County,
15.3% for Oakland County and 17.7 % for
Macomb County.2
#39, January 2014
Data and Methods
In this brief, we use panel data from the
Michigan Recession and Recovery Study
(MRRS) to evaluate recent changes in food
insecurity, identify key risk factors, and
examine use of public and private programs
intended to reduce food insecurity. We
focus on three questions:
• What was the prevalence of food
insecurity, particularly among lowincome households, in the Detroit area
in the aftermath of the Great Recession
in 2009 and more recently, in 2011?
• Among low-income households, what
characteristics were associated with the
greatest risk of food insecurity at one or
both time periods?
• Among low-income households, what
share of food insecure households
received public or nonprofit food
assistance in the previous year?
We analyze data from the first two waves
of the Michigan Recession and Recovery
Survey (MRRS), a stratified random sample
of households in the Detroit Metropolitan
Area (Wayne, Oakland and Macomb
counties). The MRRS gathered detailed
information about employment history,
income sources, education and training,
safety net program participation, private
social support, material hardships, health
and mental health, marital and relationship
status, and basic household demographics.
At Wave 1, trained interviewers conducted
hour-long in-person interviews between
October 2009 and March 2010 with 914
adults between the ages of 19 and 64
(response rate of 82.8%). The second wave
(also hour-long in-person interviews) was
completed between April and August
2011 with 847 of the Wave 1 respondents
(response rate of 93.9%). When household
and individual survey weights are applied,
1. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States in 2011. ERR-141, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, September 2012.
2. Gunderson, Craig, Elaine Waxman, Emily Engelhard, Amy Satoh and Namrita Chawla. Map the Meal Gap 2013. Technical Brief. http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hungerstudies/map-the-meal-gap.aspx
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan
www.npc.umich.edu
the MRRS sample is representative of
households with adults ages 19 to 64
years living in the three-county Detroit
Metropolitan Area.3
At each wave, respondents were asked
five questions about food purchases and
consumption in the 12 months prior to
the survey. The responses were used
to assess household food insecurity.4
Specifically, respondents were asked if
each statement was often, sometimes, or
never true for them.
1. The food they bought just didn’t last, and
they didn’t have money to get more.
2.They couldn’t afford to buy balanced meals.
3.They or other adults in household cut the
size of their meals or skipped meals because
there wasn’t enough money for food.
4.They ate less than they felt they should
because there wasn’t enough money to
buy food.
5.They were hungry but didn’t eat because
they couldn’t afford enough food.
We summed the number of responses
indicating “often” or “sometimes” to
these five questions to create a 0 to 5
scale score reflecting household food
insecurity. Households with scores of 0 or
1 are defined as having high or marginal
food security, households with scores
of 2 to 4 indicate low food security, and
scores of 5 are defined as having very low
food security. We define food insecure
households as those with either low or very
low food security (summed scores ranging
Table 1: Food Insecurity by Income Level of Households
in the Detroit Metropolitan Area
All HHs
< 200% FPL*
> 200% FPL **
Food Insecure Neither Wave
72
37
81.9
Food Insecure Wave 1 only
8.7
19.8a
5.6
Food Insecure Wave 2 only
5
11.5a
3.1
14.3
31.7
9.3
Food Insecure at Both Waves
N=847
Note:
FPL Federal poverty line. Column percentages reported. Percentages weighted with household weights.
*
Subpopulation is those households at or below 200% Federal Poverty Line (FPL) in both waves.
**
Subpopulation is those not at or below 200% FPL in both waves.
a
Indicate within-column comparisons where difference in prevalence of food insecurity between two
matched cells is statistically significant at or below the p<.05 level.
Source: Michigan Recession and Recovery Study (MRRS)
from 2 to 5). Households with summed
scores or 0 or 1 are defined as food secure.
We classify respondents as experiencing
persistent food insecurity if they report
low or very low food security in both waves
of the MRRS.
In addition to analyzing variation in food
insecurity across an array of respondents’
demographic characteristics, we examine
the likelihood of reporting food insecurity
by financial resources, measured as the
ratio of the prior calendar year’s annual
household income to the federal poverty
line. These calculations are based on
household size and number of children
under age 18 in the household.5
In this brief, we first report the extent of
food insecurity and food assistance across
all households and then focus on lowincome households for the remainder. We
highlight food insecurity among the most
economically vulnerable, households with
incomes at or below 200% of the federal
poverty line (FPL). These households have
higher food insecurity rates nationally6
and are more likely to be eligible for food
assistance from public and nonprofit
programs than higher income households.
The Prevalence of
Food Insecurity
Although most research focuses on the
prevalence of food insecurity among lowincome populations, changes in the labor
market during the Great Recession have
affected many non-poor and near-poor
families. Table 1 presents information
3. When survey weights are applied, the MRRS sums to the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated total population count for Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties of metropolitan
Detroit, see Adams, Terry K., Jim Lepkowski, Mahmoud Elkasabi, and Danielle Battle. (2011). “Michigan Recession and Recovery Study (MRRS): Sampling and Weights Documentation.”
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
4. These five items are drawn from a USDA six-item food security scale that is collected each December in the Current Population Survey.
5. Income is determined from the question, “Now thinking about you and your household, what do you estimate was the total income for you and other people living here from all sources,
including earnings from work, any business, plus food stamp payments, child support, any government benefits, retirement income and any interest or investment income, before taxes?”
Determinations of household low-income status in Wave 1 are based on income for calendar year 2008; for Wave 2, on income for calendar year 2010. We group households according to whether
they fall at or below 200% of the federal poverty threshold, between 200% and 400% of the federal poverty threshold, or greater than 400% of the federal poverty threshold. For reference, in
Wave 1, a single parent household with two children is categorized as below 200% of the federal poverty line if annual income for 2008 was at or below $35,200 (poverty threshold for family of
three with two children is $17,600).
6. Coleman-Jensen et al. (2012) report that 40.3% of households with incomes at or below 185% of the federal poverty line reported food insecurity at some point during calendar year 2011.
www.npc.umich.edu
2
Table 2: Prevalence and Persistence of Food Insecurity Among
Low-Income Households in Metropolitan Detroit
Households at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Line in both waves,
N=307
Food Insecure
W1 Only
Food Insecure
W2 Only
Food Insecure
W1 & W2
Food Secure
W1 & W2
All households 200% or below
19.8
11.5
31.7
37
Black
23.2
16.7
29.8a
30.4
Nonblack
15
4
34.4a
46.5
Below FPL
23.7a
12
37.5a
26.7a
Between 100-200% FPL
12.6a
10.4
21.0a
55.9a
Less than HS
15.2
17.7ab
37.5a
29.5a
HS Degree but no BA
22.4
9.1a
32.0b
36.5b
BA or more
18.3
6.1b
10.6ab
65.0ab
HH with children
24.1
9.8
28.7
37.4
HH without children
15.3
13.3
34.8
36.6
No unemployment
21.1
6.3
29.3
43.3
1-6 months unemployment
17
16.4
36.2
30.4
7-12 months unemployment
18.7
13.2
27.5
40.6a
NILF all 12 months
23.8
10.2
44.3
21.8a
Health limitation
23.2
17.1
36.7
22.9a
No health limitation
17.9
8.2
28.8
45.2a
Financial hardship
16.4
15.1a
41.7a
26.8a
No financial hardship
22.8
8.3a
22.9a
46.1a
Household Characteristics
Note:
FPL Federal poverty line. Row percentages reported. Percentages weighted with household weights. Food
insecure is defined as low or very low food security.
a, b Indicate within-column comparisons where differences in prevalence of food insecurity between two
matched cells are statistically significant at or below the p<.05 level.
Source: Data from the Michigan Recession and Recovery Study (MRRS).
about food insecurity for all respondents
interviewed in both waves, classified by
income categories. Among all households,
28% were food insecure at one or both
waves; 8.7% were food insecure in Wave 1
only, 5.0% were insecure at Wave 2 only,
while 14.3% were persistently food insecure.
Overall 23% of respondents were food
insecure at Wave 1 (8.7% plus 14.3%) and
19.3% (5.0% plus 14.3%), at Wave 2.
Nearly 32 percent of households with
income at or below 200% of the poverty line
were food insecure at both waves (middle
3
column of Table 1) and 63 percent were
insecure at least once. Additionally, 19.8% of
low-income households were food insecure
in Wave 1 only and 11.5% were food insecure
in Wave 2 only. Over half of low-income
households were food insecure at Wave 1
(51.5%, 31.7% plus 19.8%) compared to 43.2%
at Wave 2 (31.7% plus 11.5%). This represents
a statistically significant decline in the
proportion of low-income households who
reported being food insecure.
While conditions were clearly worse among
those with very low incomes, in the wake
of the Great Recession food insecurity was
also relatively common among households
with incomes above 200% of the federal
poverty line; 18.1% reported being food
insecure at some point in the survey and
9.3% were food insecure at both waves.
Food Insecurity Among
Low-Income Households
We now focus on the economically
vulnerable respondents in the MRRS.
Table 2 examines the prevalence and
persistence of food insecurity among
different types of households in
metropolitan Detroit with incomes at or
below 200% of the poverty line.
Few differences in the prevalence of food
insecurity were statistically significant
between low-income black and nonblack
households. More than two-thirds of
blacks were food insecure in either or both
waves (69.6%), and 30.4% were food secure
in both waves. By comparison, slightly
more than half of low-income nonblacks
(53.5%) were food insecure in either or both
waves leaving almost half food secure in
both waves (46.5%). Low-income blacks
may be more likely to be food insecure
compared to low-income whites because
a larger proportion of low-income black
households had incomes at or below
the federal poverty line, where risk for
becoming food insecure is greatest.
Table 2 indicates that poor households
(those with incomes below the federal
poverty line) had significantly higher levels
of food insecurity in Wave 1 than near-poor
households (incomes between 100 and
200% of federal poverty). Poor households
also were more likely to be food insecure
in both waves than near-poor households:
37.5% for the former and 21% of the latter
were persistently food insecure.
Other important risk factors for food
insecurity include having less than a high
NPC Policy Brief #39
school degree or a high school degree
but no bachelor’s degree (BA). Sixty-five
percent of those with a BA or more were
food secure in both waves, compared to
only 29.5% of those with less than a high
school degree and 36.5% of those with a
high school degree but no BA.
We define health limitations as any health
problem or disability which prevents
respondents from working or which limits
the kind or amount of work they can do.
Whereas 45.2% of low-income respondents
without health limitations were food
secure in both waves, only 22.9% of those
with health limitations were food secure
in both waves. Low-income households
experiencing financial hardships (i.e.,
reporting at least one of the following:
behind on rent or mortgage payments,
unpaid utility bills or credit card debt,
took out payday loans, or filed for
bankruptcy) were more likely to be food
insecure (41.7%) than those not reporting
such hardships (22.9%).
Use of Food Assistance
Programs
Food assistance programs are designed
to help low-income households and
food insecure households to consume
adequate amounts of food. In addition to
government food assistance programs such
as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP — formerly Food
Stamps), many local nonprofit agencies and
religious congregations offer emergency food
assistance. While households must have a
gross income at or below 133 percent of the
federal poverty line to qualify for SNAP,
charitable organizations may choose not
to apply income criteria when they provide
emergency food assistance. We might
therefore expect households with incomes
exceeding the SNAP eligibility level to be
www.npc.umich.edu
Table 3: Food Insecurity and Food Assistance Receipt Among Low-Income
Households in Metropolitan Detroit
SNAP receipt
Charity receipt
Neither type of
assistance
Food Insecure
60.4*
34.9*
31.3*
Food Secure
45.6*
13.7*
50.7*
Note:
*
Differences in rates of food assistance receipt are statistically significant at the p<.01 level for within
column comparisons. Pooled wave 1 and wave 2 data. Percentages weighted with household weights.
Low-income households are those at or below 200% FPL in both waves. Some respondents may use
both SNAP and charity.
Source: Michigan Recession and Recovery Study (MRRS)
Conclusion
more likely to receive help from private
organizations (and not public assistance),
when faced with food insecurity.
To examine the extent to which food
insecure households receive public and/or
private food assistance, we asked MRRS
respondents about SNAP receipt and
receipt of food or shelter assistance from
a private charity in the 12 months prior
to the survey. Table 3 presents the pooled
observations across the two survey waves
to examine food assistance program
participation in either wave for low-income
households, comparing across household
food security status groups.
Among low-income households who report
being food insecure, 60.4% received SNAP
and over 34.9% received private charitable
food assistance. Many food-secure
low-income households also used these
programs: 45.6% received SNAP and 13.7%
received charity.
About half of food secure households
received neither public nor private food
assistance, compared to 31.3% of the food
insecure low-income households. This
suggests that there are food insecure
households who could benefit from
increased access to these programs.
In the aftermath of the Great Recession,
food insecurity remains quite prevalent
among low-income households in the
Detroit Metropolitan Area. In addition, a
sizeable share of households with incomes
above 200% of the poverty line also
experienced food insecurity. Apart from
low income, we find that other risk factors
for food insecurity include low educational
attainment, health limitations, and
financial hardships.
Turning to the good news, we find that
food insecurity among low-income
households fell 8 percentage points over
the two-year period between interviews.
Moreover, use of public programs was
high for low-income families and higher
for those with food insecurity. Private
charity use, particularly for low-income
respondents who were food insecure,
was less prevalent than use of SNAP,
but remained common for food insecure
households. However, many low-income
households reported no public or private
sources of food assistance.
Further research using the MRRS will
take advantage of the longitudinal nature
of the data and rich contextual information
to assess the potential modifying effects
of access to public and private sources of
assistance on food insecurity, net of other
changing economic conditions.
4
Acknowledgements
The Michigan Recession and Recovery
Study was funded in part by funds
provided to the National Poverty Center
at the University of Michigan by the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, the Office of the Vice
President for Research at the University
of Michigan, the Ford Foundation and
the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation. Allard’s work was supported
by the Population Research Center at
NORC and the University of Chicago, and
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) Grant
#5R24HD051152-07.
About the Authors
Sandra K. Danziger is Professor of Social
Work and Research Professor of Public
Policy at University of Michigan. Her
research interests are the effects of public
programs on the well-being of families and
children. More broadly, she focuses on
poverty, demographic trends in child and
family well-being, program implementation
and evaluation, and qualitative research
methods. She was Principal Investigator on
the Women’s Employment Study.
Scott W. Allard is an Associate
Professor in the School of Social Service
Administration at the University of
Chicago and a Research Associate of the
Population Research Center at NORC and
the University of Chicago. His primary
areas of research expertise are urban
poverty, safety net utilization, and the
spatial accessibility of governmental and
nongovernmental safety net programs.
Currently, Allard is completing a study
of the suburbanization of poverty in the
U.S. and how the changing geography of
poverty presents numerous challenges for
the contemporary American safety net.
5
Maria V. Wathen is a Ph.D. candidate in
Richard Rodems is a Ph.D. student
Social Work and Sociology at the University
of Michigan. Her research interests include
poverty, policy, and family and child welfare
both in the U.S. and in Eastern Europe
and Russia, NGOs/nonprofits in emerging
democracies, and contextualization issues
in globalized social work education. Maria
has a range of experience in the business,
nonprofit, and academic spheres in both the
United States and Russia.
in Social Work and Sociology at the
University of Michigan. His research
interests include poverty, inequality, the
welfare state, the role of nonprofits in the
provision of social welfare services, and
program evaluation.
Sarah Burgard is an Associate Professor
of Sociology, an Associate Professor of
Epidemiology, and a Research Associate
Professor at the Population Studies Center
at the University of Michigan. Her research
focuses on the ways that stratification by
race/ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic
position influence people’s opportunities
in life and how this influences their health.
Sarah is currently working on several
projects related to socioeconomic and
health changes that occurred with the Great
Recession, and on other analyses examining
how employment intersects with home
responsibilities to shape gender differences
in healthy behaviors, health and survival.
Alicia Cohen is a family physician and
Clinical Lecturer in the Department of
Family Medicine at the University of
Michigan Medical School. Her research
interests include food insecurity, nutrition,
and diet-related disease, with a particular
focus on community-based research. She
is currently working on several projects
evaluating the impact of a SNAP healthy
food incentive program on fruit and
vegetable purchase and consumption
among Detroit SNAP recipients.
NPC activities are currently supported with
funding from the Ford Foundation, John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Russell Sage
Kristin S. Seefeldt is an Assistant
Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, as
Professor at the School of Social Work at
the University of Michigan. Her research
focuses on exploring how low-income
individuals understand their situations
pertaining to work and economic wellbeing. She is currently conducting research
on the financial coping strategies of
families and is a Principal Investigator
on the Michigan Recession and Recovery
Study. Previously, Seefeldt was an
Assistant Research Scientist at the Gerald
R. Ford School of Public Policy and the
Assistant Director of the National Poverty
Center, both at the University of Michigan,
and an Assistant Professor at the School
of Public and Environmental Affairs at
Indiana University.
well as generous support from units within the
University of Michigan, including the Gerald R.
Ford School of Public Policy, Office of the Vice
President for Research, the Rackham Graduate
School, and the Institute for Social Research.
National Poverty Center
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
University of Michigan
735 S. State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091
734-615-5312
npcinfo@umich.edu
NPC Policy Brief #39